.

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Stephen A. Smith - Every Black American Should Vote GOP for One Election

I think I like his reasoning:

ESPN host Stephen A. Smith thinks that if, for one election, every black American voted Republican, it would send a message to both parties that the demographic is not under any one particular party’s control.

“What I dream is that for one election, just one, every black person in America vote Republican,” Smith said Tuesday afternoon at the Impact Symposium at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. His explanation:

From what I’ve read, Barry Goldwater is going against Lyndon B. Johnson. He’s your Republican candidate; he is completely against the civil rights movement. Lyndon B. Johnson was in favor of it — civil rights legislation. What happens is, he wins office, Barry Goldwater loses office, but there was a Senate, a Republican Senate, that pushed the votes to the president’s desk. It was the Democrats who were against civil rights legislation — the southern Dixiecrats. So because President Lyndon B. Johnson was a Democrat, black America assumed the Democrats were for it

Black folks in America are telling one party, “We don’t give a damn about you.” They’re telling the other party, “You’ve got our vote.” Therefore, you have labeled yourself “disenfranchised” because one party knows they’ve got you under their thumb. The other party knows they’ll never get you and nobody comes to address your interest.

During his impassioned monologue, Smith likened blacks voting for Republicans to customers “shopping around,” essentially asking shops to “cater to them” so that they will do business.

“We don’t do that with politics,” he lamented, “and then we blame white America for our disenfranchisement.”

In the 2012 election, 93% of black voters supported President Barack Obama, with just 6 percent casting their ballots for the losing Republican ticket. That disparity led the Republican Party to publish an autopsy report detailing ways it can try to win over more votes from minority groups.

91 comments:

How about this... every person in America should boycott the next election, and every one AFTER that,until the candidates are representative of the People in the same way Emerson envisioned Representative Men.

ps - And when their terms are up and the members of government fail to be re-elected, let them leave their offices in Washington DC, and let the city go DARK until a genuine "election" is held.

Yes because the democrats have done so much for black America. Let's see what have they done?Fed policies have destroyed the black family. Teachers unions stop kids from attending better schools. A liberal media who for months lied shamelessly about “Hands up, don’t shoot.” A president who once said, ”If I had a son he would look like Trayvon ” and whose economic policies have especially hurt minorities. And last but not least, 50 years of “talking about race” has given us race-baiters like Holder & Sharpton.Apparently you didn't read or comprehend the article

Byrd retired from the Senate for health reasons in November 1965. His son, Harry F. Byrd, Jr., was appointed his successor.

---

In November 1965, Byrd's father resigned from the U.S. Senate for health reasons, and at the father's suggestion, Virginia Governor Albertis S. Harrison Jr. appointed Byrd to succeed his father.[12] He later won a special election in 1966 as a Democrat, to serve out the remainder of his father's term.

In 1970 Byrd broke with the Democratic Party, when asked to sign an oath to support the party's yet-to-be-determined presidential nominee for the 1972 campaign. He rejected this demand, saying, "The Democratic National Committee is within its rights to require such an oath. I do not contest this action. I cannot, and will not, sign an oath to vote for an individual whose identity I do not know and whose principles and policies are thus unknown. To sign such a blank check would be, I feel, the height of irresponsibility and unworthy of a member of the United States Senate... I would rather be a free man than a captive senator." He then ran for re-election to the Senate as an independent. He was widely popular in the state and won the senate seat, with an electoral majority of 54% against candidates from both major parties; he thus became the first independent to win a statewide election in Virginia, and also the first independent to win a U.S. Senate seat by a majority vote.[4] Byrd's move is said to have influenced Virginia political power for more than twenty years.[2]

He continued to caucus with the Democrats, and extended his Democratic seniority. But like his father, Byrd had a very conservative voting record and was a strong supporter of federal fiscal discipline, as he had been at the state level. In fact he authored, and Congress passed, a floor amendment stating, "Beginning with fiscal year 1981, the total budget outlays of the Federal Government should not exceed its receipts." Consistent with this fiscal policy, Byrd was a minimalist as a producer of legislation - believing less was more.

Robertson was a typical Byrd Democrat, and was very conservative on social issues. He was chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs from 1959 until 1966. In 1956, Robertson was one of the 19 senators who signed The Southern Manifesto, condemning the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown vs. Board of Education and the resulting public desegregation.

When President Lyndon Johnson sent his wife, Lady Bird, on a train trip through the South to encourage support for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, Robertson was one of four Southern Senators who refused to meet with her on the whistle-stop trip. In retaliation, President Johnson personally recruited State Senator William B. Spong, Jr., a considerably more liberal Democrat, to run against Robertson in the 1966 Democratic primary. By this time, even some Byrd Democrats were moving away from resistance to integration as espoused by Robertson and the Organization's patriarch, Harry F. Byrd, Sr. Spong defeated Robertson in the primary in one of the biggest upsets in Virginia political history—an event that is considered the beginning of the end of the Byrd Organization's long dominance of Virginia state politics.

Upon the death of Senator Theodore Bilbo in 1947, Stennis won the special election to fill the vacancy, winning the seat from a field of five candidates (including two sitting Congressmen, John E. Rankin and William M. Colmer). He won the seat in his own right in 1952, and was reelected five times. From 1947 to 1978, he served alongside James Eastland; thus Stennis spent 31 years as Mississippi's junior Senator, even though he had more seniority than most of his other colleagues. He and Eastland were at the time the longest serving Senate duo in American history, later broken by the South Carolina duo of Strom Thurmond and Fritz Hollings. He later developed a good relationship with Eastland's successor, Republican Thad Cochran.

Stennis wrote the first Senate ethics code, and was the first chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee. In August 1965, Senator Stennis, who was known as "Mr. Integrity", protested the Johnson administration's emergency supplemental appropriation request for the Vietnam war and the lack of information about the future costs of the conflict.[5]

In 1973, Stennis was almost fatally wounded by two gunshots after being mugged outside his Washington home by two teenagers.[6] In October 1973, during the Watergate scandal, the Nixon administration proposed the Stennis compromise, wherein the hard-of-hearing Stennis would listen to the contested Oval Office tapes and report on their contents, but this plan went nowhere. Time magazine ran a picture of John Stennis that read: "Technical Assistance Needed." The picture had his hand cupped around his ear.

Stennis lost his left leg to cancer in 1984[7] and subsequently used a wheelchair.

Stennis was unanimously selected President pro tempore of the Senate during the 100th Congress (1987–1989). During his Senate career he chaired, at various times, the Select Committee on Standards and Conduct, and the Armed Services, and Appropriations Committees. Because of his work with the Armed Services Committee (1969–1980) he became known as the "Father of America's modern navy", and he was subsequently honored by having a supercarrier, USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) named after him. He is one of only two members of Congress to be so honored, the other being former Georgia Democrat Carl Vinson.

In 1956, Eastland was appointed as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Under the Senate's seniority rules, he was next in line for the chairmanship and there was no significant effort to deny him the post, which he held until his retirement.

He was re-elected five times, facing substantive GOP opposition only twice and not until the late 20th century, which party politics were shifting after passage of civil rights legislation that enforced constitutional rights for minorities. In 1966, freshman congressman Prentiss Walker, the first Republican to represent Mississippi at the federal level since Reconstruction and the late 19th-century disfranchisement of blacks, ran against him. This was one of the early campaigns by the Republican Party as it worked to attract white conservatives in the South to its ranks. Following leadership by national Democrats, who supported civil rights legislation in 1964 and 1965, most African Americans in the South began to vote with the Democratic Party on national candidates.

Former Republican Party state chairman Wirt Yerger had considered running against Eastland, but bowed out after Walker announced his candidacy. Walker ran well to Eastland's right, accusing him of not having done enough to keep integration-friendly judges from being confirmed by the Senate. As is often the case when a one-term representative runs against a popular incumbent senator or governor, Walker was soundly defeated. Years later, Yerger said that Walker's decision to relinquish his House seat after one term for the vagaries of a Senate race against Eastland was "very devastating" to the growth of the Mississippi GOP.[2]

In 1972, Eastland was reelected with 58 percent of the vote in his closest contest ever. His Republican opponent, Gil Carmichael, an automobile dealer from Meridian, was likely aided by President Richard Nixon's landslide reelection in 49 states, including 78 percent of Mississippi's popular vote. However, Nixon worked "under the table" to support Eastland, who was a long-time personal friend. Nixon and other Republicans provided little support for Carmichael to avoid alienating conservative Southern Democrats.

The GOP did work to elect two House candidates, Trent Lott and Thad Cochran, who later were elected and became influential U.S. senators from the state. Recognizing that Nixon would handily carry Mississippi, Eastland did not endorse the national Democratic candidate, George McGovern of South Dakota, who was considered a liberal. Four years later, Eastland supported the candidacy of fellow Southern Democrat Jimmy Carter of Georgia, rather than Nixon's successor, President Gerald R. Ford, Jr. Eastland's former press secretary, Larry Speakes, a Mississippi native, served as a press spokesman for Gerald Ford and U.S. Senator Robert J. Dole in the latter's vice-presidential campaign on the Ford ticket.

During his last Senate term, Eastland served as President pro tempore of the Senate, as he was the longest-serving Democrat in the Senate.

In 1966, Ellender disposed of two weak primary opponents, including the liberal State Senator J.D. DeBlieux (pronounced "W") of Baton Rouge and the conservative businessman Troyce Guice, a native of St. Joseph in Tensas Parish, who then resided in Ferriday, and later in Natchez, Mississippi. The Republicans once again did not field a candidate against Ellender that year.

Ellender cultivated good relationships with the media, whose coverage of his tenure helped him to fend off serious competition. One of his newspaper favorites was Adras LaBorde, longtime managing editor of Alexandria Daily Town Talk. The two "Cajuns" shared fish stories on many occasions.

In 1972, the Democratic gubernatorial runner-up from December 1971, former state senator J. Bennett Johnston, Jr., of Shreveport challenged Ellender for renomination. Ellender was expected to defeat Johnston, but the veteran senator died in July during the primary campaign and left Johnston the de facto Democratic nominee. Nearly 10 percent of Democratic voters, however, still voted for the deceased Ellender.

Johnston became the Democratic nominee in a manner somewhat reminiscent of how Ellender had won the Senate seat in 1936 after the death of Governor Oscar K. Allen. Johnston easily defeated the Republican candidate, Ben C. Toledano, a prominent attorney from New Orleans who later became a conservative columnist, and former Governor John McKeithen, a Democrat running as an Independent in the general election because he had not been able to qualify for the primary ballot, given the timing of Ellender's death.

Ellender's immediate successor was Elaine S. Edwards, first wife of Governor Edwin Edwards, who was appointed to fill his seat from August 1, 1972 to November 13, 1972, after the election.

Speculation persisted that Long would run for governor in the 1963 Democratic primary. He had received encouragement from "all the shades of factionalism in the state." Instead, he endorsed his cousin, Gillis W. Long, the U.S. representative from the since disbanded Eighth Congressional District based about Alexandria. At the time, Long was second to the aging Senator Harry Flood Byrd, Sr., of Virginia on the Senate Finance Committee and had already presided as chairman during Byrd's prolonged absence because of failing health.[13]

As a result of President Johnson's signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Long (along with more than a dozen other southern Senators, including Herman Talmadge and Richard Russell, both of Georgia) did not attend the 1964 Democratic National Convention in Atlantic City.[14] However, Long defied conventional wisdom by delivering a television address in Louisiana in which he strongly endorsed the Johnson-Humphrey ticket, which lost the state to the Republican Barry M. Goldwater-William E. Miller electors. The action had no consequence on Long's future, however, as Republicans declined to challenge his reelection in 1968, 1974, and 1980.

1968[edit]

In 1968, Long overpowered a primary rival, Maurice P. Blache, Sr. (1917–1991), to win renomination. He was unopposed in the general election when the presumed Republican candidate, Richard Kilbourne, the district attorney in East Feliciana Parish, withdrew from the race. Kilbourne abandoned his campaign so that his party could concentrate on trying to elect David C. Treen to represent Louisiana's 2nd congressional district over incumbent Democrat Hale Boggs.

1974[edit]

In 1974, Long defeated in the Democratic primary state Insurance Commissioner Sherman A. Bernard of Westwego in Jefferson Parish, 520,606 (74.7 percent) to 131,540 (18.9 percent). Another 44,341 ballots (6.4 percent) went to a third candidate, Annie Smart. Louisiana Republican state chairman James H. Boyce of Baton Rouge noted that the party could not find a viable candidate to challenge Long.[15]

Sen. Russell Long in 1985In 1980, Long defeated State Representative Woody Jenkins of Baton Rouge, 484,770 (57.6 percent) to 325,922 (38.8 percent) in the state's nonpartisan blanket primary. During the 1980 campaign, Long's friend and colleague, Robert J. "Bob" Dole, the Kansas Republican who had been his party's vice presidential nominee in 1976 and who would be the presidential nominee in 1996, made a television commercial for Long in the race against Jenkins. Dole and Long were both running for reelection that year. The 1980 primary was the last time Long's name was on a ballot. Jenkins had run against Johnston in 1978 and ran again in a disputed outcome against Mary Landrieu in 1996 for the seat Johnston vacated on retirement.

Jenkins won majorities in only four parishes, Rapides, La Salle, Iberia, and St. Tammany. When Jenkins claimed to have received 55 percent of the votes cast by whites, Long called the claim "racist." Long urged the media to investigate Jenkins' claim. He contended that his own research was in conflict with Jenkins' assertion.[16]

Near the end of his last term in office, Long hired the young journalist Bob Mann as his press secretary. Mann, who now hold the Douglas Manship Chair of Journalism at LSU, later penned the 1992 book, Legacy to Power: Senator Russell B. Long of Louisiana

The 1962 mid-term elections were overshadowed by the Cuban Missile Crisis. Martin joined Hill in endorsing the quarantine of Cuba but insisted that the problem was an outgrowth of the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion of 1961. Hill said that Soviet premier, Nikita S. Khrushchev, had "chickened out" because "the one thing the communists respect is strength."[5] The New York Times speculated that the blockade ordered by Kennedy may have spared Hill from defeat.[6]

Despite the postwar bipartisan consensus for foreign aid, Martin hammered away at Hill's backing for such programs. He decried subsidies to foreign manufacturers and workers at the expense of Alabama's then large force of textile workers: "These foreign giveaways have cost taxpayers billions of dollars and turned many areas of Alabama into distressed areas." Martin also condemned aid to communist countries and the impact of the United Nations on national policy. He questioned Hill's congressional seniority as of little use when troops were dispatched in the fall of 1962 to compel the desegregation of the University of Mississippi.[7]

The Hill-Martin race drew considerable national attention. The liberal columnist Drew Pearson wrote from Decatur, Alabama, that "for the first time since Reconstruction, the two-party system, which political scientists talk about for the South, but never expect to materialize, may come to Alabama."[8]The New York Times viewed the Alabama race as the most vigorous off-year effort in modern southern history but predicted a Hill victory on the basis that Martin had failed to gauge "bread-and-butter" issues and was perceived by many as an "ultraconservative."[9]

Hill defeated Martin by 6,019 votes, 201,937 (50.9 percent) to 195,134 ballots (49.1 percent). Turnout dropped sharply in 1962, compared to 1960, when presidential electors dominated the ballot, and the state split between Kennedy-Johnson and unpledged electors who ultimately voted for U.S. Senator Harry F. Byrd, Sr., of Virginia. Nearly 250,000 who had voted in the 1960 U.S. Senate election won by the Democrat John Sparkman, did not cast ballots in 1962. Hill won thirty-seven of the state's sixty-seven counites.[10] Martin's strong showing enabled him to be elected in 1964 to Alabama's 7th congressional district seat in the U.S. House.

Hill in retrospect[edit]

In 1969, Hill was awarded the Public Welfare Medal from the National Academy of Sciences.[11] He received honorary degrees from thirteen colleges and universities, including the University of Alabama and Auburn University. He was a Methodist, a Freemason, a United States Army veteran of World War I, having been assigned to the Seventeenth and Seventy-first United States Infantry Regiments, and a member of the American Legion.

Hill retired from the Senate in 1969 and was succeeded by fellow Democrat, James B. Allen of Gadsden, a former lieutenant governor and a leader of his state's conservative faction. Hill died in Montgomery on December 21, 1984, and is interred there at Greenwood Cemetery.

His great-grandson, Joseph Lister Hubbard, is a member of the Alabama House of Representatives from District 73 in Montgomery, holding office since 2010. He is also the Democratic nominee for Attorney General of Alabama in the 2014 elections.

In 1960, Sparkman defeated the Republican Julian E. Elgin of Montgomery, who received 164,868 votes (29.8 percent) in the Senate contest. Six years later, Elgin ran again against Sparkman as an Independent but polled few votes. In 1966, Sparkman defeated another Republican, John Grenier, the former state GOP chairman and an attorney from Birmingham, who polled 39 percent of the vote.

Initially Grenier had planned to run for governor in 1966, and James D. Martin was poised to oppose John Sparkman, as Martin had four years earlier against Sparkman's colleague, J. Lister Hill. However, The New York Times predicted toppling the "tight one-party oligarchy" would be a herculean task. Though Sparkman trailed in some polls, The Times speculated that he would rebound because Alabamians were accustomed to voting straight Democratic tickets.[21]

In his last Senate race in 1972, Sparkman easily defeated President Nixon's former Postmaster General, the Republican businessman Winton M. Blount of Montgomery, originally from Union Springs. Blount, running without a specific endorsement from President Nixon, first had to dispatch Republican intraparty rivals James D. Martin and state Representative Bert Nettles.[22]

On October 30, 1977, Sparkman became the longest serving senator in Alabama state history.[23]

On November 16, 1985, John Sparkman died of a heart attack at Big Springs Manor Nursing Home in Huntsville, Alabama. He was eighty-five.

Hmmmm... the pattern of Dixiecrat Democrats continues... but my patience does not. You are not only WRONG AGAIN, RN, but completely STUPID! The Dixiecrats, excepting Strom Thurmond, STAYED with the Democrats... almost until "death" did they part.

Thanks for schooling RN abd me too Thersites, and back to RN's left wing talking points ,if you read my reply ,I was referring to what has today's democrats done for the black community(see comment #4)

It's screwed beyond words though isn't it. The repubs now think that in order to get the back majority vote, they must keep them in modern day slavery like the democrats have always done. It seems like progress is impossible. Especially when you read the brain vomit form the libtards of which there are too damn many.

isn't interesting that they have their boy in office for 8 years and they still can't just shut up and go about their business? That's probably because they have no business. Believe me, if we get a conservative majority in government, the last thing I'm going to be doing is trolling the internet trying to pick fights with libtards. I will be basking in the 4 to 8 years of having government occasionally make a little sense or even do something productive for the middle class. So yes, libtards your actions make you even more pathetic than pathetic can describe. I hope You're not happy! hahahaaa

Amazing Kid they got their "Black Guy" elected and "now" they play the race card like it never happened.Now they have to get their "Woman"elected so they can play the anti-woman card and take credit for electing the first black and first woman president. even though one is the worst president ever and no doubt the other will be right up there as well

Please tell me Mr. Rational Nation USA, why don't you allow the filthy language that you use here, on your own blog?Why is it any difference between YOUR cussing, swearing, cursing, and the use of profanity here, but you won’t allow it on your slimy - blog when idiot progressives such as octopus says his idiotic say.

Is it because you are afraid to stand up to that TOOL? ...Apparently when you and your fellow creeps from the left write on other blogs you are not the “gentleman” that you want others to think you are.

I’ve read those dumb comments from those Shit-heads, and it has yet to make any real sense. The truth is, like any creative use of vocabulary, using profanity and/or cursing can be VERY effective at expressing oneself. So why the hypocrisy? Or is hypocrisy something that you can’t control? I guess that Deceit and Hypocrisy is a prerequisite of the Liberal Left ...

And why are liberals always such hypocrites?Why do Liberals always come across as the weak, intolerant, hypocritical, and bizarre kind of people?

As a Lacanian, I can in all seriousness state that I have. I don't deny any of the four possible subjective perspectives, including those of "hysterics" such as yourself, for whom "labels" have no "meaning". :)

Problems arise from not understanding the limits of objectivity in scientific research, especially when results are generalized. Given that the object selection and measurement process are typically subjective, when results of that subjective process are generalized to the larger system from which the object was selected, the stated conclusions are necessarily biased.

lol! It doesn't matter what you believe, RN. It's how you behave and what you do. You're not that "rational actor" you pretend to be. You never were. You're a hodgepodge of irrationalities with constellations centered on point de capitons with "names" like "democracy" and "republic".

The leading motif of the Enlightenment is, of course, some variation of the injunction "Reason autonomously': Use your own head, free yourself of all prejudices, do not accept anything without questioning its rational foundations, always preserve a critical distance...'But Kant had already, in his famous article "What is Enlightenment?", added to this an unpleasant, disquieting supplement, introducing a certain fissure into the very heart of the Enlightenment project: 'Reason about whatever you want and as much as you want - but obey!' That is to say: as the autonomous subject of theoretical reflection, addressing the enlightened public, you can think freely, you can question all authority: but as part of the social 'machine', as a subject in the other meaning of the word, you must obey unconditionally the orders of your superiors. This fissure is proper to the project of Enlightenment as such: we find it already with Descartes, in his Discourse on Method. The obverse of the cogito doubting everything, questioning the very existence of the world, is the Cartesian 'provisional morality', a set of rules established by Descartes to enable him to survive in the everyday existence of his philosophical journey: the very first rule emphasizes the need to accept and obey the customs and laws of the country into which we were born without questioning their authority.

The main point is to perceive how this acceptance of given empirical, 'pathological' (Kant) customs and rules is not some kind of pre-Enlightenment remnant - a remnant of the traditional authoritarian attitude - but, on the contrary, the necessary obverse of the Enlightenment itself: through this acceptance of the customs and rules of social life in their nonsensical, given character, through the acceptance of the fact that 'Law is law', we are internally freed from its constraints - the way is open for free theoretical reflection. In other words, we render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, so that we can calmly reflect on everything. This experience of the given, non-founded character of customs and social rules entails in itself a kind of distance from them. In the traditional, pre-enlightened universe, the authority of the Law is never experienced as nonsensical and unfounded: on the contrary, the Law is always illuminated by the charismatic power of fascination. Only to the already enlightened view does the universe of social customs and rule appear as a nonsensical 'machine' that must be accepted as such.

Thank you for the link info to -Slavoj Zizek, "The Sublime Object of Ideology". I had not hear of him bt will now peruse his work. I have never been an Emanuel Kant fan but nothing should be dismissed out of hand. So, I shall revisit Kant based on your last comment.

What I’d like to know is what American would vote for a fat, ugly , lying, and dumpy mess of a women like Hillary Clinton. .? How can she possibly manage the country when she can't even manage keeping herself looking decent? She looks as if she sits around all day eating junk food and ice cream and never gets any exercise other than counting her money and making up stories... She’s pitiful .

'What I’d like to know is what American would vote for a fat, ugly , lying, and dumpy How can she possibly manage the country when she can't even manage keeping herself looking decent? She looks as if she sits around all day eating junk food and ice cream and never gets any exercise other than counting her money and making up stories... She’s pitiful”

WELL LETS LOOK AT SOME OF HER ACCOMPLISHMENTS..-Firing the White House Travel Staff.- Craig Livingstone and FileGate.- Sandy" Berger the Assistant to the President for National Security Affair, stuffing classified material from the National Archives down his socks- Making a 10,000% return on investment by reading the Wall Street Journal- Causing Vince Foster to commit suicide- Smearing Monica as a stalker, when it was her own Husband who was the CHEATER!- Flying bazillion miles on the taxpayer credit card- Owning her own personal mail server .- Lying about the “sniper attack” in Bosnia.- Benghazi benghazi benghaziand Nobody Likes Fat Slobs.

And if you say “What difference does it make”? It makes a BIG difference to...The family of Christopher Stevens. The family of Sean Smith. The family of Tyrone Woods. The family of Glen Doherty. And to us, the American People.

Obama's historic Presidency will forever be labeled as an epic failure. The polls revealed what the media was hiding, America opposes the Obama agenda and quite frankly, they want the office of the Presidency back. We can handle normal Washington noise on the hill, but we can't stomach the disrespect Obama has shown to the office of POTUSThe left train stops here. America will no longer allow Obama to make us the doormat for terrorist and a haven for criminals from Mexico

My Message to Shaw Kenawe, as well as the dangerous and Idiotic, grumpy Obama obsessed readers of her stupid progressive blog.

You all need a change of pace. I can tell from the anguish you express in your words. You look for answers and cannot find them in the places you expect them to be. Maybe it is because you are looking in the wrong places for the answers.Your posts and your ideas are so ridiculous, that they can’t be taken seriously. I can also tell that you have never observed any Tea Partiers up close. I'll tell you this, they don't have the horns you seem to think they have. You might want to visit a couple of Tea Parties with an open mind,and without pre-conceived notions. Do not be confrontational, but do ask question. Remember that Platinum was once a waste metal until someone decided to check out its chemical properties objectively. I’m sorry, but in my opinion, if you believe in either of those you’re suffering from some kind of mental illness and shouldn’t. The Grumpy Old Men who are left in your party are so closed minded and have such idiotic ideas that it would be hilarious if it weren't so dangerous, and they follow Obama simply because he calls himself a ‘Democrat! The Obama administration is an runaway Totalitarian Empire with " fascist" tendencies, that has fallen into the same traps as the Empires before it, such as Rome, that tricks its people into believing they have a chance to "change" things (so much for “Hope and Change”, or “Transforming America”! Why in the world would ANYBODY in their right mind want to even consider doing that?

Had Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell been elected president, race relations would have been at least 90 percent better than it is today. From the insane beer summit with that Harvard professor to editorializing about Trayvon Martin, being his Son and from Eric Holder’s “my people” to “nation of cowards,” the Obama administration has sought at opportune times to emphasize racial differences, mostly to secure the base for Obama’s own reelection and for midterm elections, that incidently didn’t work out so well. . The result is that race relations have become more polarized than at any other time in the last 20 years or more. Under Obama’s leadership, celebrities, political analysts, and politicians traffic more in racial terms than at any other time in our recent history. Obama has had to voice unusually inflammatory charges. How did it happen that suddenly Chris Rock, Harry Belefone, Oprah, Beyonce & Jay-Z, and Jamie Foxx sound racially biased?And now that Ted Cruz has announced a presidential bid today and you have already blown a gasket. And why was it so necessary for Obama to make Bibi Netanyahu look like the bad guy last week, when he WON the election?...And Obama’s, illegal immigration reform has become a political if not a racially charged issue, that will be the destruction of our voting process. Can he possibly stoop any lower than this?

Last week when Benjamin Netanyahu’s reelection was first announced, It took Obama two days to call and congratulate Bibi Netanyahu, And as we all know, he only did so because he was pressured by the media and his ignorance was showing. .I don’t think we have ever had a President so ignorant of the Middle East and that includes the “so called” decorates that called George W. Bush all these names, when he got us into a war in Iraq to rid that nation of Saddam Hussein and presumably create a democracy to replace him. Liberals tend to forget that Bush had actually accomplished that until Obama pulled out all of our troops and consigned Iraq, and so proudly agreed to help create the Muslim “Brother hood” who since has turned into ISIS.To make it simple Obama has been wrong about Iraq, wrong about Syria, wrong about Egypt when he supported the Muslim Brotherhood, and is very wrong about Iran, a fact that has Israel and all the other Middle Eastern nations seriously concerned. If Putin hadn’t concluded that Obama is a fool and a weakling, he might not have invaded Ukraine and annexed the Crimea. Yes, Obama has been on the WRONG SIDE for as long as I can remember. And lets not forget that this is, a President who released from Gitmo, and sent FIVE HIGH LEVEL TERRORISTS back to join their Taliban colleagues in Afghanistan in exchange for a U.S. Army sergeant, Bowe Bergdahl, who defected from his unit to join the Taliban and was held prisoner for five years. If you haven’t heard anything more about him it’s because that’s the standard operational procedure of the Obama White House. First they screw up and then they wait until they hope everyone has forgotten.If that move wasn’t obscene enough, in the latest Worldwide Threat Assessment submitted to Congress by the director of National Intelligence, both Iran and Hezbollah, a terror state and its proxy in Lebanon, were removed from the list of global terror threats.And if that wasn’t bad enough in his two terms to date Obama has demonstrated an animosity toward Israel and in general towards Netanyahu in particular. His demand for a two-state “solution” ignores that fact that the Palestinians have refused to initiate a state of their own from the day Israel declared its independence in 1948. Is he kidding?Has he forgotten about the Hamas Tunnel? The “land-for-peace” policy provided the Palestinians with the whole of Gaza. Instead of building a thriving homeland, they used it to rocket Israel until it was forced to respond with enough force to reduce the threat. Land-for-peace? How about the land through which the Palestinians were tunneling into Israel for the purpose of attacking Israelis on the Gaza border?These people (or should I have said “Terrorists”) have been trying to destroy Israel since Israel’s founding. These days Gaza is controlled by Hamas, a TERRORIST organization devoted to the destruction of Israel and funded by IRAN. The very same IRAN that Obama is negotiating with as I type. Netanyahu’s decision reflects the minds and hearts of the Israelis who reelected him and the Likud party to power.

to continueSo what is Obama’s response? He wants to go to the United Nations to force Israel to cede land to a Palestinian nation that the Palestinians have refused to create. Ironically, if you want to find a nation full of Palestinians, you need only visit Jordan which, along with Egypt, has had a peace treaty with Israel for decades.If you want to find a nation with a million-plus Muslims, then visit Israel which is their home. Arabs and Jews have lived together there in peace for a long time.Someone needs to tell Obama that we or the Israeli’s do not Negotiate with TERRORIST’S! Someone needs to tell Obama about the Hamas assassination plot against Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas that was disrupted in early March when his forces raided nine PA-ruled towns in the West Bank to detain 550 Hamas suspects. By initiating mass riots as Hamas had done in Gaza in order to seize power from the PA, the overthrow of Abbas was intended to give them control over the West Bank as well.Someone needs to tell Obama that the Palestinians were offered all of this a long time ago and their TERRORIST leader back then Mr. Arafat rejected the offer. Someone might also inform Obama that 2014 was the deadliest year for terror attacks in 45 years. The U.S. Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, in late February told Congress that “When the final counting is done, 2014 will have been the most lethal year for global terrorism in the 45 years such data has been compiled.” Worldwide, from January to September, around 13,000 terror attacks were carried out, killing 31,000 people.While Obama obsesses about Israel, he continues to do little about ISIS, the Islamic State, that has been expanding from Iraq and Syria into the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, and South Asia. The report says that ISIS or “ISIL’s” rise represents the greatest shift in the Sunni violent extremist landscape since Al Qaeda affiliates first began forming, and it is the first to assume at least some characteristics of a nation state.” No one knows better than the Israelis who have fought wars and intifadas that the major menace to the West is to be found in the Middle East. Instead of demanding that Israel commit territorial suicide, Obama should be supporting the greatest ally America has in the Middle East, but that is perhaps too much to ask of this ignorant, arrogant, former community organizer...With Obama's political and religious affiliations his being a Muslim or not, I would like to ask a question. Do you believe our president was seriously affected by Muslim’s views and the communist agenda of his relatives?Whatever he is, there's one thing for sure without question, he's a rotten president for this country. He has accomplished zero for America, and zero for her citizens. He plays politics instead of calling on all Americans to stand with him against the anti-America enemies and losing our friends. His race has absolutely nothing to do with the way he carries out his duty as president. Anyone can accuse him of being whatever they think,, but what he does as president is the most important point of focus. His method of leading this nation, and being a leader, is certainly in question. Since he took office, we have experienced a decline and a further decline since his re-election. And the next two years doesn't look any better!